Results 1 to 6 of 6
UK Snoop law
This is a discussion on UK Snoop law within the General Computing and Internet forums, part of the Community channel category; So who is bummed about this like me? Even worse knowing they put in clause to exempt MP's so their ...
- 01-12-16, 09:39 AM #1
UK Snoop law
So who is bummed about this like me? Even worse knowing they put in clause to exempt MP's so their perversions and underhanded dealings are safe from scrutiny. Scary when you see how many different agencies can now see your internet history. Anyone else going encrypted like me? does a VPN even protect me from ISP DPI? maybe someone clever should make a guide, I bet most customers don't even know this change has happened.
- 01-12-16, 12:34 PM #2
Re: UK Snoop law
Sadly it is true that this law came into place.
Obviously this country must be at war once more. Didn't they start snooping into everyone's post during The Great War?
Our justice system appears to have changed it's ethos too. No one is innocent until they can stump up the money, which we have frozen, to pay for all those hefty legal fees.
PlusNet Fibre since Jan 2021
Previously Sky Fibre & Sky BB since 2010.
- 01-12-16, 12:42 PM #3
Re: UK Snoop law
'Snooper's charter' bill becomes law, extending UK state surveillance
Home secretary hails ‘world-leading’ laws, which include forcing web and phone companies to collect browsing histories
The “snooper’s charter” bill extending the reach of state surveillance in Britain was given royal assent and became law on Tuesday as signatures on a petition calling for it to be repealed passed the 130,000 mark.
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, hailed the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 as “world-leading legislation” that provided “unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection”.
But privacy campaigners claimed that it would provide an international standard to authoritarian regimes around the world to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.
The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.
It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been described as “a death sentence for investigative journalism” in the UK.
The Home Office says some of the provisions in the act will require extensive testing and will not be in place for some time. However, powers to require web and phone companies to collect customers’ communications data will be in force before 31 December, the date when the current Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 expires.
The home secretary said: “The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
“The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge. But it is also right that these powers are subject to strict safeguards and rigorous oversight.”
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, responded to the home secretary’s “world-leading” claim, saying: “She is right, it is one of the most extreme surveillance laws ever passed in a democracy. The IP Act will have an impact that goes beyond the UK’s shores. It is likely that other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.”
He said the legislation was debated and passed while the public, media and politicians were preoccupied with Brexit: “Now that the bill has passed, there is renewed concern about the extent of the powers that will be given to the police and security agencies.
“In particular, people appear to be worried about new powers that mean our web browsing activity can be collected by internet service providers and viewed by the police and a whole range of government departments. Parliament may choose to ignore calls for a debate but this could undermine public confidence in these intrusive powers.”
The European court of justice is due to clarify its rulings on state surveillance shortly, in a case brought by the deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson. The court’s ruling could lead to parts of the new legislation being declared unlawful and in need of amendment, including restrictions on how the personal confidential data involved can be used and accessed.
Legal aid cuts have ripped the heart out of our justice system
I genuinely believe access to justice is the hallmark of a civilised society." These were the rousing words that in 2010, the then justice secretary Ken Clarke used to introduce the coalition government's legal aid reforms. Three years on, it seems a good time to look at their impact.
The effects of the reforms contained within the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) have been even more devastating than first feared. It represents by far the greatest retreat of the legal aid scheme since it was introduced in 1949. In April 2013, the government cut £350m from the relatively small £2.2bn budget, lopping off entire areas of law. The bits that were removed included most of what is known as 'social welfare law' - that is advice on welfare benefits, employment, housing (except homeless cases), immigration (except asylum) and family (except in cases of domestic violence).
The latest statistics from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show the extent of the devastation: state-funded advice through the 'help scheme' is one third of the pre-LASPO levels, and representation before a court or tribunal around two-thirds of what it was.
Not only that, but in this time of austerity – and in the middle of a housing crisis – what remains of publicly funded legal advice is vanishing. According to the MoJ figures, there were 11% fewer housing cases compared to the same quarter the previous year, and cases for the duty solicitor scheme in county courts are down 21% year on year.
A double whammy of local authority cuts and the LASPO reforms means that the threadbare network of advice agencies is unraveling at an alarming rate. Vulnerable people looking for help have few places to turn other than the Citizens Advice Bureaux and their MPs. Eleven law centres have been forced to close since 2013. And on average, law centres have lost 40% of their income (including a 60% cut to their legal aid revenue).
You have to ask yourself what Ken Clarke might have done to the legal aid system if he wasn't of the apparently sincerely held conviction that 'access to justice' was so vital.
At the time LASPO was going through parliament, I launched The Justice Gap, an online magazine run by journalists about the law and justice. The first article that appeared on the site was headlined: "'Access to justice': what the @%!? does that mean?" In light of Ken Clarke’s declaration, we asked human rights lawyers, academics and commentators whether they thought the phrase was useful anymore or whether, having become so devalued, it should just be junked.
"Access to justice is a much broader concept than access to the courts and litigation,' Michael Mansfield QC told us. "It encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that rights are meaningless unless they can be enforced. It is about protecting ordinary and vulnerable people and solving their problems."
We are now raising funds to tell the story of legal aid and explore what 'access to justice' really means. Our one-off publication is aimed at kick-starting a debate about what has been called 'the forgotten pillar of the welfare state'. This is a collaborative project and we are working with the Justice Alliance, a wide coalition of lawyers, professionals working in the advice sector, community groups, trade unionists and campaigners. Having seen the civil legal aid scheme butchered with little attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the British public, the Justice Alliance sprang into life. It was conceived by a younger generation of lawyers who have their careers before them and who recognise the urgent need to reframe the access to justice debate.
At the end of this three year campaign, the present Lord Chancellor Michael Gove dropped reforms that would have devastated the criminal defence sector and left many ordinary people without proper, meaningful access to justice. At the start of the year, the government was forced to abandon plans to foist a tendering model which would have seen hundreds of firms go to the wall, as well as the imposition of a second 8.75% fee cut.
The point of the Justice Alliance is to seek common cause with a broad constituency of concern, not just lawyers. 'These legal aid proposals are part of the larger assault on essential parts of the welfare state,' they say.
As a nation, we instinctively 'get' schools and hospitals but the issues around law and justice can often seem technical, abstract and – fair or otherwise - shrouded by a suspicion that it's all about professional self interest.
It took 27 years for the Hillsborough families to secure some measure of justice when the jury at the Warrington inquests last month returned their verdict that the 96 fans who died on April 15 1989 were 'unlawfully killed'. People are often shocked to discover that legal aid is generally not available at an inquest – hence the understandable outrage this week over the decision not to allow legal aid for the parents of Zane Gbangbola who believe their son died as a result of cyanide gas leaking from a landfill site near their flooded home. The official reason that there is no state funding is because – in the anodyne words of the Legal Aid Agency - the process 'is a relatively informal inquisitorial process, rather than an adversarial one'.
In Warrington, the families did have proper legally aided representation. But it was not like that the first time around. For the first inquest, Trevor Hicks, whose two daughters were among the dead, asked 42 grieving families to pitch in £3,000 each for a barrister. At a meeting of MPs last month, Margaret Aspinall, the chairwoman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, who lost her son James, read out the letter she received offering her £1,226.35 compensation.
"I would have loved to have told them to shove that cheque where the sun don't shine. But we had to raise £150,000 to get a barrister. So I took it," she said. "Then I got to the inquests and saw the police had 10 barristers, paid by the state, against our one."
Everyone should have access to justice, few would argue with that. But the truth is that LASPO cuts ripped the heart out of our system of publicly-funded legal advice and very few people seemed to notice. We urgently need to explain why legal aid matters and why we need to fight for proper, meaningful access to justice.
- 01-12-16, 03:19 PM #4Sky User MemberExchange: MYHGTBroadband ISP: NOW Fab Fibre (Sky network)Router: NOW TV Hub TwoSky TV: NowTV
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Thanked 167 Times in 161 Posts
- Blog Entries
I would have been more surprised if this law had FAILED to get enacted! It was doomed to eventually succeed from the very start (including previous attempts to enact something under previous governments).
As always, the "man in the street" probably remains oblivious of it and its consequences, and will remain so for now.
Will have to wait until cases, where this law is used to pursue people for purposes other than the original intentions, find their way into the mainstream press before we hear the populace cry "well I think it's disgusting and the government should do something about it". Oh wait a sec...++ speedyrite ... powered by NOW Broadband from June 2018 ++
(previously powered by Sky Broadband from July 2007)
- 02-12-16, 09:23 AM #5
Re: UK Snoop law
60% of the people in this country and quite possibly the world are walking around with their head, eyes and brains locked into a phone. They have no idea what is happening around them and only care about the next message coming from Facebook, Twitter or whatever.
- 02-12-16, 02:21 PM #6
Re: UK Snoop law
Indeed... sorry I was late posting a response, I was just checking on my Facebook and Twitter feeds.
More annoying is the dawdlers walking around oblivious to people and objects and getting in my way! It's bad enough in London at Christmas time with the extra millions doing their Christmas shopping without some dolt moving from side to side on the pavement ( Occasionally the road ) obstructing those of us who have to work.
Can be quite funny to watch the fails though, but some are not so funny...
Last edited by marjohn56; 02-12-16 at 02:50 PM.--------------------------------------------------------
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.